Article: Real vs Fake Persecution CC

[Saddlemomma]

So.  Do you think that getting rid of Jim Crow laws was discriminating against white people? Women getting the vote was discrimination against men? 

 

You're confusing what I mean and the definition of discriminate.  Yes, there is always going to be discrimination.  However, some discrimination is good such as the Jim Crow laws, women getting the vote and the abolition of slavery.  Some discrimination is not good.  The act of discriminating is making a distinction.  That in and of itself is not bad.  It's how people apply discrimination that is bad.

 

You have a view which you think is right but would take away some aspect of my liberty.  I have a differing view which I think is right and would take away some aspect of your liberty.  You wish to discriminate against me by legislating your view.  I wish to discriminate against you by legislating my view.  That is simply the nature of the beast.

 

Same-sex marriage is not a case of discrimination.  In order to discriminate, same-sex couples would have to be specifically denied something that every other group already has the freedom and right to do.  They have not demonstrated that.  They may get denied the entitlements of married people, but then again, single people are denied those same entitlements.  Plus, those entitlements are getting smaller each year. Here is why I say that:

 

Common misrepresentation: Same—sex marriage will secure new liberties

for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal

liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do--express

love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle

property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any

of these things.

Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it's done all the time. Entire cottage industries

have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs--from wedding cakes to

honeymoons--of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.

Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not

restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone--of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual

preference--from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until

death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.

Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle

and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage

license doesn’t give liberty...

 

Taken from the first article I referenced earlier.

 

You probably disagree with me and the author of this article, but that's the great thing about liberty.  We have the freedom, for now, to verbally disagree in a respectable manner without breaking the law.

[KarenNC]

it still doesn't add up. If they chose to be homosexual, then why would they want a same sex marraige? Oh. Is it a rhetorical device to say if they don't want a same sex marraige, then what are we talking about, because marraige means same sex by definition?

 

It's an attempt to claim that homosexuals aren't being discriminated against because they are just as free to have a heterosexual marriage as anyone else.

[stripe]

Seriously? :confused:

 

We must watch totally different TV shows, because I can't remember the last time I saw a TV character saying grace or going to church. And what currently popular shows make a point of having their characters be religious? I can't think of any.

I thought of another one with a religious Catholic character: Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries, which is from Australia. (And set in the 1920s.)

 

Miss Fisher is not apparently religious, in the sense that she doesn't seem to discuss the matter, but she does celebrate Christmas. Any-hoo, her "companion" (by which I mean, lady's companion, not romantic partner), Dot, is a devout Catholic. In the books, she is engaged to a fellow Catholic; in the TV series, he is a Protestant. Anyway, she prays regularly, is well connected to her church, reads the Bible regularly, consults her priest regularly, and bakes items for sale in church bazaars. The show has Phryne Fisher living rather wildly (she is basically a female James Bond, but a detective), yet getting along with Dot. She does not try to change her or get her to forsake her faith, and neither does Dot try to dictate her beliefs to Miss Fisher.

[KarenNC]

But, again, that has nothing to do with what I said. I said that marriage existed long before Christianity. That is a fact. The existence of the book of Genesis doesn't change that fact at all.

 

I understand and I agree with you. 

[Mrs Mungo]

You're confusing what I mean and the definition of discriminate.  Yes, there is always going to be discrimination.  However, some discrimination is good such as the Jim Crow laws, women getting the vote and the abolition of slavery.  Some discrimination is not good.  The act of discriminating is making a distinction.  That in and of itself is not bad.  It's how people apply discrimination that is bad.

 

You have a view which you think is right but would take away some aspect of my liberty.  I have a differing view which I think is right and would take away some aspect of your liberty.  You wish to discriminate against me by legislating your view.  I wish to discriminate against you by legislating my view.  That is simply the nature of the beast.

You are conflating two different definitions and using them interchangeably. Yes, I can have discriminating tastes. But, nobody would ever say that I was discriminating against WalMart when I don't shop there. I would be discriminating against black people or gays, if I didn't let them shop in my store. I don't want to discriminate against you just because I don't want you to be able to discriminate against me. That doesn't make any sense.

 

Same-sex marriage is not a case of discrimination.  In order to discriminate, same-sex couples would have to be specifically denied something that every other group already has the freedom and right to do.  They have not demonstrated that.

Obviously, many judges disagree with you. That is precisely why such laws are being struck down by judges all across the country.

[La Texican]

Mrs. Mungo I dabble in having a layman's understanding of laws. I even got an ordinance passed in my town. I vaguely understand that some laws are passed as statutes, codes, or some are voted on as bills, others are created by court rulings that create a precident case, basically making another law. All of this is democracy.

 

I was looking through the links for reasonable arguements, room for debate. I thought that one sounded like an honest arguement, as in there was room for debate there. I think the arguement they meant to make is "majority rules", even if they didn't know that laws can be made in a courtroom by precedent case and it's still democracy.

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs. Mungo I dabble in having a layman's understanding of laws. I even got an ordinance passed in my town. I vaguely understand that some laws are passed as statutes, codes, or some are voted on as bills, others are created by court rulings that create a precident case, basically making another law. All of this is democracy.

 

I was looking through the links for reasonable arguements, room for debate. I thought that one sounded like an honest arguement, as in there was room for debate there. I think the arguement they meant to make is "majority rules", even if they didn't know that laws can be made in a courtroom by precedent case and it's still democracy.

Sorry, I meant that the author didn't understand how our system of government works, not you. :)

[Mrs Mungo]

The third one is the most valid fear, legally having to do business in a context you feel is immoral if immoral people legally gain equal rights and become a protected class. No amount of comparing blacks to gays will mollify a baker, photographer, or minister who does not want to be forced to participate in any way in a gay ceremony. Even the hobby lobby ruling doesn't address this concern, because it can always be overturned. And if gays already have rights, and the courts later decide that businesses are not a moral extention of their owners, then what?

When I was a teenager, I attended a Southern Baptist church. They had a lesson that stated it was Biblically wrong for blacks and whites to marry. This resulted in a huge argument in the class. Our youth minister was a white man married to an Asian woman. Many of us had NA blood or were otherwise mixed. I don't think the Sunday school teachers had read the lesson ahead or they probably would have skipped it. My particular class was pretty much all in agreement that the lesson was wrong. But, there are clearly people out there who believe that their belief that interracial marriage is wrong is a Biblical belief. Should that be protected?

 

I don't think a baker with a public business that anyone can walk into off of the street gets to choose whether or not to make a wedding cake for a mixed race couple. We have anti-discrimnation laws for a reason.

 

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

 

If he doesn't want to bake cakes for marriages of which God might not approve, then he shouldn't make wedding cakes at all, problem solved.

[SemiSweet]

 

Common misrepresentation: Same—sex marriage will secure new liberties

for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal

liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do--express

love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle

property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any

of these things.

I would argue that this is absolutely false.

 

Here is what you don't get when you're not married.

 

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson

 

This, from the Supreme Court was why DOMA went to the Supreme Court, Ms. Windsor was absolutely being denied a liberty afforded to other couples.

 

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv- ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal De- fense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act—a law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and the whole realm of federal regulations—to define “marriage†and “spouse†as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi- olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General noti- fied the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Depart- ment of Justice would no longer defend §3’s constitutionality. In re- sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3’s constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un- constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor’s tax with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has not complied with the judgment.

[poppy]

Yeah, marriage isn't going to the grocery store together. It's being the person who gets the phone call from the hospital in a crisis.

[Joanne]

The argument on this topic is always over-simplified.  Part of me wants to agree and say, "Sure, everyone should have a right to be married, regardless of their sexual orientation, in the eyes of the law.  It won't affect me personally and I can still hold to my religion and disagree with homosexual acts without any repercussions."  I would like to say that.  That would be nice if there were no consequences that followed, but that is wishful thinking.

 

I want to point out this conversation is going to quickly go down-hill because I am going to express my opinions on the topic.  There is no tolerance for views like mine on this board.  A sign of things to come, perhaps?

 

I believe when gay marriage becomes a legal "right," the nonacceptance and non-recognition of those legal rights by Christians will be called discrimination, first socially and then legally.  You cannot tell me that simply the legal recognition will be enough.  Those who are pro-gay marriage want it to be an accepted social norm, and there are some religions, including my own, in which it will never be accepted.  The fake persecution of Christians who don't accept gay marriage will eventually become a real persecution.  It will compromise free speech and eventually religious freedom.  That affects everyone, including myself and my children.

 

It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.  Civil laws modify everyone's perception of acceptable forms of behavior.  Legal acceptance of gay marriage will expose my children to this new "morality" and promote it as acceptable.  It is taught in schools as acceptable.  It will affect the perceptions of right and wrong of my children and children's children.  That directly affects us.

 

It destroys the institute of marriage, the foundation of society.  That will affect all of us.  That is the point of the push towards gay marriage, I believe, at least according to these people:

 

 

"Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."

-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,

Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University

 

 "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"

-- David Vakalis

 

  "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.â€

-- Michelangelo Signorile,

OUT magazine, December/January 1994

 

 "And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit... ."

-- Ryan Conrad

 

 "But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."

-- Sally Kohn,

Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!

 

 "Wouldn't marriage's death as a state institution, including for straight people, be the best solution? ...Scrap the civil register; make no distinction in the state's eyes between married and unmarried citizens."

-- Alex Gabriel, 

Politics.co.uk

 

 "Marriage is the proverbial burning building.  Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"

-- National Conference on Organized Resistance

 

 "Marriage should not be a goal; it should be a choice. One choice available out of many recognized as valid by society. But it isn’t. Not yet. Right now, as far as society is concerned, you are married or you are not yet married. And as that notion becomes further codified our freedom to make other choices steadily erodes."

-- David McGee

 

 "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality."

-- Paul Varnell,

Chicago Free Press

 

 "We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."

-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto,

London, 1971, revised 1978

 

“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality." [source]

-- Paula Ettelbrick

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

 

 "... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."

-- Masha Gessen, journalist

During a pannel discussion at the Sydney Writers Festival

 

 

I'm guessing that for those who promote gay marriage, these are not real issues.  Perhaps you do not believe institution of traditional, heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society, the new morality IS your morality, and those who oppose it should be silenced and/or forced to accept that which you believe is right.  It is a battle of beliefs, it seems.

 

There is not a "homosexual lifestyle." Yes, there is outrageous behavior in gay bars and pride parades. Yes, subgroups within the gay community are intentionally edgy, provocative, fringe. This is true of every sub-culture: homeschooling, Christian, Pagan, vegetarian, attachment parenting, unschoolers.

 

Just as you did not wake up one day and decide to be heterosexual, homosexuals did not wake up and decide to be gay. Sexual *behavior* is another topic - one does not have to be oriented any particular way to chose to engage in sex with either gender.

 

I worked in a couple of bars for about 3 years (2006 - 2009). It was in a conservative suburb of Houston. The clientele was predominantly white, middle class, and heterosexual. I saw a tremendous amount of substance abuse and unhealthy sexual behavior. But that group didn't represent the heterosexual lifestyle anymore than the Duggars do.

 

One of my personal frustrations with the Christian theology behind being ant-gay is the lack of critical self reflection. It's simply a fact that you can not take the Bible literally/fundamentally. Each and every Christian "picks and chooses" the areas they believe are literal, not culturally indoctrinated, relevant. The "argument" is null IMO because anti-gay Christians never admit to the inconsistent application of the Bible in forming their political views.

 

Research is fairly clear that "society" benefits from stable relationships. If "you" actually care about the benefit of society, especially children, then the logical choice is to support efforts that are known to support, encourage, and sanction stability. Offering official support to a couple who wish to make their union legal is a stability *builder*, not detriment.

 

[*Lulu*]

Yeah, marriage isn't going to the grocery store together. It's being the person who gets the phone call from the hospital in a crisis.

And, as someone who has spent some serious time in crisis over the last year, it is having the ability to act in that crisis.

 

Once upon a time I believed that this could be worked around with power of attorney, etc. That was before my non-biological grandparent suffered a prolonged decline curtesy of dementia. My "grandmother" had no living biological children or grandchildren. While still perfectly sound in mind she have power of attorney to those who had become her family. They were able to make decisions for her each time she was admitted to the hospital with heart trouble, but it was not always a straightforward thing.

 

Flash forward many years, my biological grandfather had a massive post-operative stroke and died after many days in ICU. My biological grandmother, his wife of 60 years, was able to make decisions for him in a completely straightforward manner.

 

Both situations were difficult. In both the decisions were ultimately made in line with the patients' wishes. In the first though, there was a great deal of extra stress and turmoil while the hoops were jumped through.

 

Marriage confers rights that make many rocky roads a bit easier to navigate.

[marbel]

Ooh, those radical Sydney Writers Festival attendees! It's a plan for world domination, I tell you! And I should know - I'm there every May.

 

May I suggest that you are overthinking, not to mention being selective with your quotes ?

 

Because gay and lesbian people are PEOPLE first and world-dominating, Christian loathing, marriage haters way, way down the list - most of them would just like to do the same thing as you. Meet someone nice, fall in love, discover that this is the person they want to be with, get married, maybe have a few kids. Heck, some of them even want to go to church as a family! That's the 'homosexual lifestyle' you are so disparaging of.

 

Dress it up all you like. Your rights are not under threat, your speech is not under threat. All you are losing is the ability to use your religion to discriminate against others. Cry me a river.

 

Yes, Ms Twitchy Fingers, you can report this now.

 

Are they fake quotes?  Or did real people say those things, and mean them?  If they are, how are they different from the anecdotes in the article linked in the OP?  (Other than that those weren't even quotes, if I recall correctly, but anecdotes.)

[Mrs Mungo]

There is not a "homosexual lifestyle." Yes, there is outrageous behavior in gay bars and pride parades. Yes, subgroups within the gay community are intentionally edgy, provocative, fringe. This is true of every sub-culture: homeschooling, Christian, Pagan, vegetarian, attachment parenting, unschoolers.

 

<snip>

I worked in a couple of bars for about 3 years (2006 - 2009). It was in a conservative suburb of Houston. The clientele was predominantly white, middle class, and heterosexual. I saw a tremendous amount of substance abuse and unhealthy sexual behavior. But that group didn't represent the heterosexual lifestyle anymore than the Duggars do.

Agreed. On a regular basis I drive downtown to a large city in the morning. People here would be *shocked* at the number of men driving sedans and minivans picking up/dropping off prostitutes before they go to work. Those men are not representative of my idea of marriage.

[sunflowerlady]

I don't usually post much in these threads, but I am still trying to understand the argument that gay people already have the right to marry. They can just marry the opposite gender and have a heterosexual marriage. Problem solved! Yeah, that is a perfect solution. Can't foresee any trouble or problems with that at all.

 

I just do not get that one. I thought I had heard it all.

[Ipsey]

Agreed. On a regular basis I drive downtown to a large city in the morning. People here would be *shocked* at the number of men driving sedans and minivans picking up/dropping off prostitutes before they go to work. Those men are not representative of my idea of marriage.

 

 

Not to mention "the homosexual lifestyle" is just a euphemism for "having sexual relations with members of the same sex."

 

If I were to talk about straight people and talk about their "heterosexual lifestyle" when I was only referring to their sexual behavior, that would seem equally weird.

 

Most parts of lifestyle of gays and straights are equally the same. Hobbies, family, worship, even the fact that most of them have sex.  

 

The choice of sex partner is the only thing, for the most part, that sets gays and straights apart.

 

Oh, and the bit about gays not having the same protections straights do.

 

I wish folks who don't support gay rights would just say, "sexing with the sames" instead of "homosexual lifestyle" because at least that would be honest.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not to mention "the homosexual lifestyle" is just a euphemism for "having sexual relations with members of the same sex."

 

<snip>

 

I wish folks who don't support gay rights would just say, "sexing with the sames" instead of "homosexual lifestyle" because at least that would be honest.

I don't know. I don't think people who use that phrase mean "having sex with someone the same sex as you." I think they believe that homosexuals are more promiscuous, engage in in dangerous sex and so forth at a greater rate than heterosexuals.

[Joanne]

I don't know. I don't think people who use that phrase mean "having sex with someone the same sex as you." I think they believe that homosexuals are more promiscuous, engage in in dangerous sex and so forth at a greater rate than heterosexuals.

There does tend to be a narrow definition of homosexuality in that the central and predominant discussion is what people do with their sexual organs and with whom.

 

The same myopic view of heterosexual marriage does not exist; it is presented as a holistic. Complex relationship of which sex might be a part.

[Mrs Mungo]

There does tend to be a narrow definition of homosexuality in that the central and predominant discussion is what people do with their sexual organs and with whom.

 

The same myopic view of heterosexual marriage does not exist; it is presented as a holistic. Complex relationship of which sex might be a part.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you and Ipsey on that point.

 

I was just thinking that the term "homosexual lifestyle" usually means something else in my experience with people who use that phrase. eta: In other words, they seem to believe that the "homosexual lifestyle" is dominated by sex at bus stations and reading NAMBLA pamphlets.

[SemiSweet]

I don't know. I don't think people who use that phrase mean "having sex with someone the same sex as you." I think they believe that homosexuals are more promiscuous, engage in in dangerous sex and so forth at a greater rate than heterosexuals.

In the past, there probably was a bit more of that than there is presently for a few reasons: 1) acting "out" because you're constantly being told your are deviant, going to hell, etc. 2) the stress and strain of hiding yourself for much or even part of your life and 3) the famous pride parades that celebrate very openly their sexuality.

 

My dad came out in 1992 at 38 years old, he was a married military man so he was very well acquainted with hiding himself. He went completely bat crap crazy with the stereotyped "lifestyle" for over 10 years. He has some serious emotional issues and guilt and baggage that many people don't ever really have to deal with. Luckily he has pulled himself together, but he struggled in a big way with becoming who he is.

 

ETA: all that to say then when people feel forced to hide and/or conform it can permanently damage them, and of course, their loved ones by default.

[Frances]

First of all, we have to remove the Bible from the equation.  I don't invoke biblical reasons for why I don't endorse same-sex marriage.  I go back to the original reason of why the government got involved in marriage in the first place. If you truly want to understand why, may I respectfully suggest you read the following in the order I've posted them: (The first one is the most important and longest.  The second and third are very short and support the first.)

 

• http://www.str.org/publications/same-sex-marriage-challenges-and-responses#.U9Kc97G2XsE  (you'll need to click on the link at the bottom of the banner that reads: Solid Ground May/June 2004.
• http://www.str.org/quickthoughts/is-marriage-about-love#.U9Kb4LG2XsE
• http://www.str.org/blog/how-will-same-sex-marriage-hurt-you#.U9Kch7G2XsE

I hope this helps you understand where some of us are coming from.  You may not agree, and that's fine.  However, you did state that you do really want to understand.

 

Discrimination is a double-edged sword.  It cannot be avoided. If you are protecting a minority, you are usually discriminating against the majority and vice-verse.  There is no such thing as non-discrimination.  You are always discriminating against someone or something.

 

The second article above contains the following quote:

"Because marriage isn’t about love.  Ask any married person.  It’s about a commitment that is supposed to deliver stability for families.  That’s what society is really interested in because that’s what ensures the continuation of a society."

 

How does it benefit society to deny gay couples the ability to commit to marriage and provide stability for their families? Do the children of homosexual couples somehow need stability less than the children of heterosexual couples? What about children born to heterosexual couples and put in the foster care system and later adopted by gay couples? Does their need for stability simply disappear now that they have gay parents?

[Joanne]

In the past, there probably was a bit more of that than there is presently for a few reasons: 1) acting "out" because you're constantly being told your are deviant, going to hell, etc. 2) the stress and strain of hiding yourself for much or even part of your life and 3) the famous pride parades that celebrate very openly their sexuality.

 

My dad came out in 1992 at 38 years old, he was a married military man so he was very well acquainted with hiding himself. He went completely bat crap crazy with the stereotyped "lifestyle" for over 10 years. .

It is common for heterosexuals to go "bat crap crazy" after the end of a heterosexual marriage.

 

I imagine the complications of closeted ex military married gay coming out could be a set up for extended dysfunction.

[SemiSweet]

It is common for heterosexuals to go "bat crap crazy" after the end of a heterosexual marriage.

 

I imagine the complications of closeted ex military married gay coming out could be a set up for extended dysfunction.

I can see that, though I didn't know it was common. As an adult I can sympathize but as a kid I was pissed. He did a lot of damage and knowing that compounded his guilt. I think he went on a 15 year spree of sex, drugs, and rock n roll, and very abusive relationships. He is paying for it with his health now, he is very ill. He gets very emotional sometimes and will call me or my siblings crying, apologizing and asking for forgiveness, even though we are all very close now and have clearly forgiven him. I wouldn't wish what he's gone through on my worst enemy, and that is what it feels like Christians are doing to their (LGBTQ) community, and to me as an offshoot and part of that community.

 

Edited for clarity

[SemiSweet]

I will say as an outlying member of the LGBTQ community (I was raised in it, I consider myself a part of it) that when people are all like "why are you attacking my for my opinion, just because it's different from yours" it blows my mind. The desire to legislate marriage "their" way is a direct attack on *my* family. I am not attacking their family. I am not causing harm to them directly. The LGBTQ community wants one thing, the freedom to live their lives as THEY see fit, not as other people see fit. If you are granted that right why shouldn't someone else?

 

And because I absolutely must bring this up in ever conversation pertaining to LGBTQ: the teen suicide rate is significantly higher in gays than straights. As long as that continues to be true I will vehemently call you out on your bigotry and hatefulness. If your "god inspired" words send a child a step closer to suicide, I hope you do feel persecuted. *all yous are general* not a response to any post at all. I just cannot mention the suicide rate/attempted slide rate enough. It is a real issue, especially in heavily religious areas of the country.

[Caroline]

I will say as an outlying member of the LGBTQ community (I was raised in it, I consider myself a part of it) that when people are all like "why are you attacking my for my opinion, just because it's different from yours" it blows my mind. The desire to legislate marriage "their" way is a direct attack on *my* family. I am not attacking their family. I am not causing harm to them directly. The LGBTQ community wants one thing, the freedom to live their lives as THEY see fit, not as other people see fit. If you are granted that right why shouldn't someone else?

 

And because I absolutely must bring this up in ever conversation pertaining to LGBTQ: the teen suicide rate is significantly higher in gays than straights. As long as that continues to be true I will vehemently call you out on your bigotry and hatefulness. If your "god inspired" words send a child a step closer to suicide, I hope you do feel persecuted. *all yous are general* not a response to any post at all. I just cannot mention the suicide rate/attempted slide rate enough. It is a real issue, especially in heavily religious areas of the country.

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:

 

The homeless rate of gay teenagers is significantly higher than that of straight teenagers. As is the high school dropout rate, so I am thinking all of that gay is great teaching supposedly being done in schools isn't working. 

[a27mom]

I really, really hope that those of you who oppose gay marriage keep posting with your views. You and people like you are hurting my child and I am desperately trying to understand why. I have not heard an argument that I can understand yet so please keep trying. That was not meant to be rude. I really do want to understand.

I was going to reply to the original topic of the thread, but your plea moved me. I am not sure that I am the person to reply. I am not completely opposed to gay marriage, in that I do not actively oppose current legislation allowing it. I don't believe it is profitable for Christians to fight the prevailing opinion on this.

 

I am opposed to gay marriage on a personal level. I believe marriage is specifically between one man and one woman who have committed to permanent (til one dies) relationship. And this is the only situation where sex is ok. I don't believe that homosexual sex is "worse" than any other sex which falls outside the bounds of that specific relationship.

 

I have realized that one difference in understanding is that when I oppose homosexual marriage it is on the basis of sexual behavior, and has nothing to do with love. It broke my heart when I read somewhere that "people who are opposed to gay marriage didn't believe same sex couples could love each other". This is completely untrue for me. I have friends who are in same sex relationships, and I have no question that they love their partner. I just believe it is wrong for them to have a sexual relationship (I'm sure they have one, but I don't believe in discussing ones sex life as a general rule) So, homosexual marriage which implies sex is wrong.

 

I know it is hard to understand, and I am sure I will come across as a bigot to many, because obviously simply holding the position that marriage is limited to those of the opposite sex is bigoted to people.

 

I don't know if this will help, but it is "normal" for most Christians to deny sexual appetites in someway. And most of us consider that a healthy thing. It would be a sin to ever have sex with anyone other than my husband, unless I was widowed and remarried. It is a sin for me to watch others involved in sexual behavior, pornography etc... My single sister in law can not express herself sexually with another person etc.... So it is not a leap for us to assume that it would also be a good thing for someone with same sex attraction, to deny themselves sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage (which I realize they may never have, but many people who are attracted to the opposite sex don't get married either). These are not easy things mind you, but I find that they are good things.

 

I believe that God's grace is sufficient to cover all sin. But all sin is harmful to us, whether or not we see the harm immediately. So If I see homosexual sex as sin, and harmful to the individual, I can hardly rejoice in it. However I also believe that we all sin all the time, so I can rightly declare that I don't see people who act on homosexual attraction as "sub-human". But completely human, just like me.

 

ETA: I don't know why I put "most Christians" above, but I am not sure how to rephrase it. Maybe I should say it is a part of much Christian theology?

[Ipsey]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you and Ipsey on that point.

 

I was just thinking that the term "homosexual lifestyle" usually means something else in my experience with people who use that phrase. eta: In other words, they seem to believe that the "homosexual lifestyle" is dominated by sex at bus stations and reading NAMBLA pamphlets.

 

 

Ahh, see where I'm more familiar with is in conversation with religious people (people living a religious lifestyle? :))  who are trying to show a welcoming face to gays by saying, "We love gays, we just don't accept the gay lifestyle." Or explaining that they love their gay children, they just don't want them to have a "gay lifestyle" meaning "can't have a romantic partner at all, even if they are committed and long-term."  

[Ipsey]

I was going to reply to the original topic of the thread, but your plea moved me. I am not sure that I am the person to reply. I am not completely opposed to gay marriage, in that I do not actively oppose current legislation allowing it. I don't believe it is profitable for Christians to fight the prevailing opinion on this.

 

I am opposed to gay marriage on a personal level. I believe marriage is specifically between one man and one woman who have committed to permanent (til one dies) relationship. And this is the only situation where sex is ok. I don't believe that homosexual sex is "worse" than any other sex which falls outside the bounds of that specific relationship.

 

I have realized that one difference in understanding is that when I oppose homosexual marriage it is on the basis of sexual behavior, and has nothing to do with love. It broke my heart when I read somewhere that "people who are opposed to gay marriage didn't believe same sex couples could love each other". This is completely untrue for me. I have friends who are in same sex relationships, and I have no question that they love their partner. I just believe it is wrong for them to have a sexual relationship (I'm sure they have one, but I don't believe in discussing ones sex life as a general rule) So, homosexual marriage which implies sex is wrong.

 

I know it is hard to understand, and I am sure I will come across as a bigot to many, because obviously simply holding the position that marriage is limited to those of the opposite sex is bigoted to people.

 

I don't know if this will help, but it is "normal" for most Christians to deny sexual appetites in someway. And most of us consider that a healthy thing. It would be a sin to ever have sex with anyone other than my husband, unless I was widowed and remarried. It is a sin for me to watch others involved in sexual behavior, pornography etc... My single sister in law can not express herself sexually with another person etc.... So it is not a leap for us to assume that it would also be a good thing for someone with same sex attraction, to deny themselves sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage (which I realize they may never have, but many people who are attracted to the opposite sex don't get married either). These are not easy things mind you, but I find that they are good things.

 

I believe that God's grace is sufficient to cover all sin. But all sin is harmful to us, whether or not we see the harm immediately. So If I see homosexual sex as sin, and harmful to the individual, I can hardly rejoice in it. However I also believe that we all sin all the time, so I can rightly declare that I don't see people who act on homosexual attraction as "sub-human". But completely human, just like me.

 

ETA: I don't know why I put "most Christians" above, but I am not sure how to rephrase it. Maybe I should say it is a part of much Christian theology?

 

 

I'm glad you posted this. I think this is probably the most charitable view that can be forwarded by serious traditional Bible-believe Christians (as it is represented in the US today--I'm not sure of other parts of the world).

 

You have deep feelings on this, ones that are diametrically opposed to mine; and that's ok. And vice-versa.

I also appreciate the fact that you're not trying to prevent loving people from having the same rights that you do.  We disagree with the rest, but we can live and let live, as far as I'm concerned. 

[idnib]

I don't know if this will help, but it is "normal" for most Christians to deny sexual appetites in someway. And most of us consider that a healthy thing. It would be a sin to ever have sex with anyone other than my husband, unless I was widowed and remarried. It is a sin for me to watch others involved in sexual behavior, pornography etc... My single sister in law can not express herself sexually with another person etc.... So it is not a leap for us to assume that it would also be a good thing for someone with same sex attraction, to deny themselves sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage (which I realize they may never have, but many people who are attracted to the opposite sex don't get married either). These are not easy things mind you, but I find that they are good things.

 

Yes, but it's not illegal for a person to have an affair. It's not illegal to watch pornography. It's not illegal for single people to have sex.

 

So this leads back to the same discussion, which is whether it's fair to legislate gay marriage. Not whether it's fair to agree with it, but whether it's fair to insert yourself into the decision.

[poppy]

I was going to reply to the original topic of the thread, but your plea moved me. I am not sure that I am the person to reply. I am not completely opposed to gay marriage, in that I do not actively oppose current legislation allowing it. I don't believe it is profitable for Christians to fight the prevailing opinion on this.

 

I am opposed to gay marriage on a personal level. I believe marriage is specifically between one man and one woman who have committed to permanent (til one dies) relationship. And this is the only situation where sex is ok. I don't believe that homosexual sex is "worse" than any other sex which falls outside the bounds of that specific relationship.

 

I have realized that one difference in understanding is that when I oppose homosexual marriage it is on the basis of sexual behavior, and has nothing to do with love. It broke my heart when I read somewhere that "people who are opposed to gay marriage didn't believe same sex couples could love each other". This is completely untrue for me. I have friends who are in same sex relationships, and I have no question that they love their partner. I just believe it is wrong for them to have a sexual relationship (I'm sure they have one, but I don't believe in discussing ones sex life as a general rule) So, homosexual marriage which implies sex is wrong.

 

I know it is hard to understand, and I am sure I will come across as a bigot to many, because obviously simply holding the position that marriage is limited to those of the opposite sex is bigoted to people.

 

I don't know if this will help, but it is "normal" for most Christians to deny sexual appetites in someway. And most of us consider that a healthy thing. It would be a sin to ever have sex with anyone other than my husband, unless I was widowed and remarried. It is a sin for me to watch others involved in sexual behavior, pornography etc... My single sister in law can not express herself sexually with another person etc.... So it is not a leap for us to assume that it would also be a good thing for someone with same sex attraction, to deny themselves sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage (which I realize they may never have, but many people who are attracted to the opposite sex don't get married either). These are not easy things mind you, but I find that they are good things.

 

I believe that God's grace is sufficient to cover all sin. But all sin is harmful to us, whether or not we see the harm immediately. So If I see homosexual sex as sin, and harmful to the individual, I can hardly rejoice in it. However I also believe that we all sin all the time, so I can rightly declare that I don't see people who act on homosexual attraction as "sub-human". But completely human, just like me.

 

ETA: I don't know why I put "most Christians" above, but I am not sure how to rephrase it. Maybe I should say it is a part of much Christian theology?

 

I strongly disagree with this. And I was about to put in some quotes from Justice Kennedy's lovely words re: dignity in the Lawrence vs Kansas  case.  But really---- I just want to say I appreciate the thoughtful reply. 

 

I hadn't really thought of the angle that (to put it crudely) we are all perverts inside and it's through good church teachings that we stay in the bounds of marriage and raise kids who do the same. I can see how someone who thinks that way would find gay marriage to be almost a mockery of marriage.  I don't agree with any of that, but it's a perspective I hadn't really understood before.

[Joanne]

I will say as an outlying member of the LGBTQ community (I was raised in it, I consider myself a part of it) that when people are all like "why are you attacking my for my opinion, just because it's different from yours" it blows my mind. The desire to legislate marriage "their" way is a direct attack on *my* family. I am not attacking their family. I am not causing harm to them directly. The LGBTQ community wants one thing, the freedom to live their lives as THEY see fit, not as other people see fit. If you are granted that right why shouldn't someone else?

 

And because I absolutely must bring this up in ever conversation pertaining to LGBTQ: the teen suicide rate is significantly higher in gays than straights. As long as that continues to be true I will vehemently call you out on your bigotry and hatefulness. If your "god inspired" words send a child a step closer to suicide, I hope you do feel persecuted. *all yous are general* not a response to any post at all. I just cannot mention the suicide rate/attempted slide rate enough. It is a real issue, especially in heavily religious areas of the country.

The substance abuse rate is also higher. :(

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't know if this will help, but it is "normal" for most Christians to deny sexual appetites in someway. And most of us consider that a healthy thing. It would be a sin to ever have sex with anyone other than my husband, unless I was widowed and remarried. It is a sin for me to watch others involved in sexual behavior, pornography etc... My single sister in law can not express herself sexually with another person etc.... So it is not a leap for us to assume that it would also be a good thing for someone with same sex attraction, to deny themselves sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage (which I realize they may never have, but many people who are attracted to the opposite sex don't get married either). These are not easy things mind you, but I find that they are good things.

The problem you encounter is that those are things people choose for themselves due to *their own* religious views-whether or not to have sex outside of marriage, whether or not to watch porn, etc. There is no wide-ranging, very vocal political movement working to make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage. It is therefore viewed as hypocritical that so many religious people are hyper-focused on legislating the sexual activities of other adults, but ONLY homosexuals.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm confused about the suggestion to separate marriage into 'sacred marriage' and 'the other kind'.

 

Honestly, why can't we just have 'marriage' and it takes place in a church/mosque/temple/other place of worship/registry office/backyard/park/beach/underwater/on the moon, depending on preference.

 

Everybody gets to have the marriage they want, in front of the deity/deities/family/friends/strangers/celebrants/internet audience they want. All the wins!

Because if everyone has to have a civil marriage where they are married at the courthouse, and the religious ceremony is separate, then it takes the "marriage is a religious sacrament that can't include a same sex couple," argument out of the equation. If it is a civil ceremony for everyone, then has to do with civil law, not religion.

[Rosie_0801]

Because if everyone has to have a civil marriage where they are married at the courthouse, and the religious ceremony is separate, then it takes the "marriage is a religious sacrament that can't include a same sex couple," argument out of the equation. If it is a civil ceremony for everyone, then has to do with civil law, not religion.

 

So then a recognition of common law marriages would help? That way people can be religiously married while avoiding the state ceremony, right?

[Mrs Mungo]

So then a recognition of common law marriages would help? That way people can be religiously married while avoiding the state ceremony, right?

I know my home state is very conservative, and it's very easy to accidentally get married via common law.

[Rosie_0801]

I know my home state is very conservative, and it's very easy to accidentally get married via common law.

 

I knew I had a winning idea there. :p

 

I knew someone who thought her partner hasn't technically moved in because he's only there 5 nights a week, without seeming to notice that makes the two of them legally defacto. 

[KarenNC]

So then a recognition of common law marriages would help? That way people can be religiously married while avoiding the state ceremony, right?

 People can already be religiously married without a state ceremony, I've been to several. In some cases it was because their chosen officiant wasn't licensed to perform legal ceremonies in our state (in that case they had a civil ceremony prior), in others it was because it was a same sex ceremony and not legally recognized regardless of officiant. They just can't access any of the legal benefits or responsibilities of marriage without the state license.

 

Common law (which happens in some states) gives them access to the legal benefits without either a religious ceremony or a state license. In states where same sex marriage is illegal, common law same sex marriage can't happen either.

[a27mom]

I strongly disagree with this. And I was about to put in some quotes from Justice Kennedy's lovely words re: dignity in the Lawrence vs Kansas case. But really---- I just want to say I appreciate the thoughtful reply.

 

I hadn't really thought of the angle that (to put it crudely) we are all perverts inside and it's through good church teachings that we stay in the bounds of marriage and raise kids who do the same. I can see how someone who thinks that way would find gay marriage to be almost a mockery of marriage. I don't agree with any of that, but it's a perspective I hadn't really understood before.

Btw I am not saying that everyone opposed to gay marriage thinks this way. Some are definitely hateful and fear filled. I don't believe in classifying sin as worse than others, or declaring people as worse sinners than others. But I personally find the hateful rhetoric against gay marriage more disturbing than gay marriage.

 

I don't know that I would say that I find gay marriage to be a "mockery" of marriage, it just isn't marriage according to how I understand it. In real life the gay couples I know are much less a mockery of marriage than some straight couples I know.

 

And yes to some degree I believe we are all pretty messed up when it comes to sexuality in one way or another. I personally really don't think legalizing homosexual marriage is going to mess things up much more than they already are. And as a Christian I find legislating morality (in relatively victimless issues) to be a distraction from the gospel.

 

Thanks for listening :)

[Frances]

Yes, but it's not illegal for a person to have an affair. It's not illegal to watch pornography. It's not illegal for single people to have sex.

 

So this leads back to the same discussion, which is whether it's fair to legislate gay marriage. Not whether it's fair to agree with it, but whether it's fair to insert yourself into the decision.

 

To be fair to the poster, I believe she did say she opposed gay marriage on a personal level, but that she didn't think it was profitable for Christians to fight against it. She also said she didn't see the "sin" of homosexual sex any differently than other sexual sins. Unfortunately, many Christians do not feel that way, and I find the intense fixation on one type of sexual "sin" interesting. Given that homosexuals are such a small minority of the population, all of the other sexual "sins" mentioned above are far more likely to occur, even among Christians. But throughout history, blaming the downfall of society on a minority group has proven to be an effective way to build solidarity, fear, and hate. For some people, you can't have an "us" without a "them".

[KarenNC]

I'm dense. I'm still not understanding.

 

If you want a religious marriage you go to church, if you want a non-religious marriage you go to the registry office or hire a celebrant.

 

Idk. Maybe I have more in common with the  person quoted pages back who thought the whole marriage thing was a load of tosh anyway.

 

I cannot really understand why it is so complicated.

 

It's complicated because the US allows the clergy of certain religious groups who have filed the proper paperwork to act as agents of the state in performing a legal marriage at the same time as a religious marriage. It's that conflation of roles that, IMO, causes the problem because it's hard to separate the two roles---representative of a religious body and representative of the state--and their conflicting responsibilities when something is legally permissible that is not permissible by the dictates of the religious body. You then get into issues of religious exemptions from requirements that a normal civil servant would be required to do.

[a27mom]

The problem you encounter is that those are things people choose for themselves due to *their own* religious views-whether or not to have sex outside of marriage, whether or not to watch porn, etc. There is no wide-ranging, very vocal political movement working to make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage. It is therefore viewed as hypocritical that so many religious people are hyper-focused on legislating the sexual activities of other adults, but ONLY homosexuals.

Yes those battles have already been lost in the political arena. But I bet there used to be political movements about it.

[SemiSweet]

I just don't understand how if I don't ascribe to the concept of "sin" (which I don't) why I should have to live under someone else's concept of it.  If it harms no one then it should not be illegal.  The same people that *generally* oppose gay marriage are for small government, it makes no sense to me at all.

[Χά�ων]

I just don't understand how if I don't ascribe to the concept of "sin" (which I don't) why I should have to live under someone else's concept of it. If it harms no one then it should not be illegal. The same people that *generally* oppose gay marriage are for small government, it makes no sense to me at all.

+1

[albeto.]

Research is fairly clear that "society" benefits from stable relationships. If "you" actually care about the benefit of society, especially children, then the logical choice is to support efforts that are known to support, encourage, and sanction stability. Offering official support to a couple who wish to make their union legal is a stability *builder*, not detriment.

 

 

when people feel forced to hide and/or conform it can permanently damage them, and of course, their loved ones by default.

 

QFT. People who work against equal marriage, who think they are helping loved ones avoid suffering, maybe most important eternal suffering, are actually creating suffering in those very people they love. 

[albeto.]

I suppose it boils down to a fear of unintended consequences.

 

Hmmm, I wonder if there exists any data to support the idea that marriage between two men or two women is statistically worse for society than any other category of marriage (second marriage, young, old, may-dec, childless, differing religions, arranged, etc). Otherwise, it really does boil down to a fear of unintended consequences, doesn't it? 

[albeto.]

What I wonder if is the eventual data, assuming ( and I do ) that it will be neutral at worst, will change many minds.

 

I doubt it. Fear can be an immense motivator. We are often not aware of our own fears, we're not aware of how our brain makes decisions in order to avoid fear and anxiety. Studies show data is all but impervious against deeply held beliefs. The kind of change of attitude we're discussing takes generations. It's gratifying for me to see younger generations reject the beliefs and promises of the older generations for this very reason. Upthread someone illustrated this idea - the age of the individual and their likely attitude towards equal marriage. My grandfather was terribly racist and antisemitic. By the time my generation got to know how many people make the world go 'round, his "jokes" weren't just not funny, they were uncomfortably so. Today they'd be horrifying. I suspect his views were rather common for his generation, and mine are common to mine (obviously not 100%). My kids, and certainly their kids, will look these Civil Rights Movements in history in the same way we look to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950's and 60's and wonder, how in the world could people have thought that? They will be growing up in a world where equality is protected, where a breach of this equality will be interpreted as unjustified by the majority. 

[chiguirre]

I don't believe it is profitable for Christians to fight the prevailing opinion on this.

A penny finally dropped for me while I was reading your post, which was well written and very interesting by the way. I noticed that you spoke as a Christian, but there are Christians on both sides of this debate. In fact, there are denominations that perform same sex marriages and ordain gay people as ministers. I think that ssm opponents should acknowledge that division of opinion among their coreligionists by not framing their religious arguments as "Christian", but rather XXXXX denomination, or if they don't belong to a denomination, some other qualifier that more clearly demarcates their affiliation. I think this would clarify where the participants in the debate are coming from and highlight that not all Christians agree about this topic.

[a27mom]

A penny finally dropped for me while I was reading your post, which was well written and very interesting by the way. I noticed that you spoke as a Christian, but there are Christians on both sides of this debate. In fact, there are denominations that perform same sex marriages and ordain gay people as ministers. I think that ssm opponents should acknowledge that division of opinion among their coreligionists by not framing their religious arguments as "Christian", but rather XXXXX denomination, or if they don't belong to a denomination, some other qualifier that more clearly demarcates their affiliation. I think this would clarify where the participants in the debate are coming from and highlight that not all Christians agree about this topic.

The problem is their is no possible way to categorize myself. I don't speak for my denomination. (My denomination doesn't take a political stance on this anyway. Though they do not allow gay marriages to be performed in affiliated churches). My church actually left our previous denomination partly because of the gay marriage issue. So I am quite aware there is disagreement.

 

But see I don't believe that being a Christian is a matter of group affiliation. I believe that is a personal belief that I have sinned and that salvation is by grace alone through the substitutionary death of Christ. I am not a Christian because I attend a specific type of church. And I don't consider others Christians based on their religious affiliation, which has gotten me in trouble on here before. But the board uses the term Christian in a broad way so I try to use it that way as well. But I did try to edit my PP by saying some types of Christian thought or something like that.

 

FWIW I attend an Evangelical Mennonite church. While we do believe that homosexual sex is a sin, we do have at least one person who has homosexual attraction in our church. We don't take political stances as a congregation/denomination. And I know that there are a variety of views on the political issue of legalizing gay marriage both for and against.

 

I guess I could call myself someone who believes in Grace through Christ for Salvation. I become seriously concerned about anyone who claims certain behaviors are required for salvation. But I am also concerned about anyone who would intentionally choose or encourage what they believe to be sin.

 

It is tricky to clarify because I tend to be a think for myself type. But I also have a lot of opportunity to observe the culture, and make some inferences.

 

.

[SemiSweet]

The problem is their is no possible way to categorize myself. I don't speak for my denomination. (My denomination doesn't take a political stance on this anyway. Though they do not allow gay marriages to be performed in affiliated churches). My church actually left our previous denomination partly because of the gay marriage issue. So I am quite aware there is disagreement.

 

But see I don't believe that being a Christian is a matter of group affiliation. I believe that is a personal belief that I have sinned and that salvation is by grace alone through the substitutionary death of Christ. I am not a Christian because I attend a specific type of church. And I don't consider others Christians based on their religious affiliation, which has gotten me in trouble on here before. But the board uses the term Christian in a broad way so I try to use it that way as well. But I did try to edit my PP by saying some types of Christian thought or something like that.

 

FWIW I attend an Evangelical Mennonite church. While we do believe that homosexual sex is a sin, we do have at least one person who has homosexual attraction in our church. We don't take political stances as a congregation/denomination. And I know that there are a variety of views on the political issue of legalizing gay marriage both for and against.

 

I guess I could call myself someone who believes in Grace through Christ for Salvation. I become seriously concerned about anyone who claims certain behaviors are required for salvation. But I am also concerned about anyone who would intentionally choose or encourage what they believe to be sin.

 

It is tricky to clarify because I tend to be a think for myself type. But I also have a lot of opportunity to observe the culture, and make some inferences.

 

.

I'm not sure if I'm reading you right but I kind of feel like you're saying something along the lines of "live your life as you see fit and I'll do the same, my disagreement of your actions doesn't reflect what I think should be legislated". If that is the case, then it's refreshing and I applaud you. I just feel like my heterosexual marriage is not anyone's business and some other person's homosexual marriage is the same. I very strongly believe in the phrase live and let live.

[Delirium]

As was said up thread, I personally agree that everyone should have civil unions as an option for the legal benefits currently ascribed to marriage.